Rasnick v. State
| Decision Date | 19 August 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 482,482 |
| Citation | 256 A.2d 543,7 Md.App. 564 |
| Parties | William RASNICK v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Solomon Reddick, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, and Stephen Gary Gilden, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The original conviction of William Rasnick, the appellant, for murder in the first degree, was reversed by this Court because the evidence was insufficient, Rasnick v. State, 4 Md.App. 114, 241 A.2d 420. After remand, the case was removed to Baltimore County and tried before a jury. In the second trial, John N. Maguire, the trial judge, granted a motion for acquittal as to first degree murder, and the jury convicted for murder in the second degree. A sentence of twenty years was imposed. On appeal, Rasnick raises numerous contentions which are listed hereinafter. The evidence presented at the second trial was substantially the same as that at the first, a more complete statement of which was set out in Rasnick v. State, supra.
There appears to have been only one eyewitness, who testified that on the late afternoon of August 1, 1966 while he was sitting on the steps at 102 North Washington Street in Baltimore, he observed the deceased come out of a bar with Arsnick about ten feet behind him. Rasnick yelled to the deceased to stop, but instead the deceased went across the street where there was an argument between the two. The witness observed Rasnick hit the deceased, knocking him over some steps. After the deceased got up, the witness heard him yell, He then saw Rasnick either strike or throw the deceased over the steps again. The witness also saw Rasnick, standing over the deceased, raise his foot several times, but since the steps blocked his view, the witness could not see what Rasnick did when he lowered his foot. Rasnick walked away.
Apparently the aforegoing affair occurred after the two had spent the afternoon together drinking. The medical examiner testified that death was caused by head injuries inflicted by a blunt impact.
Rasnick contends that the evidence was insufficient because although the deceased died some seven days after the incident described above, the prosecution made no showing that the deceased was not otherwise injured in the intervening period. There is nothing to suggest there was any injury during this period, and it seems most unlikely from reading the testimony there were any injuries other than those resulting from the beating by Rasnick. We point out that the State is not obligated to negative every miraculous circumstance that could have occurred.
Rasnick argues further, since he testified that the deceased had fallen down a flight of steps earlier in the day on August 1, 1966, and since the doctor testified it was possible that the fatal injuries could have occurred at that hour, this possibility sufficiently negatived the inference that the blows of the head against the sidewalk, described above, were the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt. We point out, there is no obligation on the trier of the facts to believe the testimony that there was an earlier fall. Gardner and Maple v. State, 6 Md.App. 483, 251 A.2d 901; Love and Matthews v. State, 6 Md.App. 639, 252 A.2d 493; Brown and Shepard v. State, 6 Md.App. 631, 252 A.2d 887.
Rasnick further argues that the testimony of the eyewitness was conflicting, but we have read the testimony and see no substantial conflicts therein within the meaning of Kucharczyk v. State, 235 Md. 334, 201 A.2d 683.
Rasnick further argues that the facts surrounding the altercation between rasnick and the deceased do not show malice as required for a conviction of murder in the second degree. We think the knocking of a man's head against the sidewalk is sufficient to show malice within the rule which permits malice to be inferred from directing a weapon at a vital part of the body. Smith v. State, 6 Md.App. 114, 250 A.2d 272; Bagley v. State, 6 Md.App. 375, 251 A.2d 246.
Finally, Rasnick contends that he acted in self-defense. The only evidence of self-defense was that supplied by Rasnick's own testimony and we repeat there is no obligation on the trier of the facts to accept the testimony of the accused.
Rasnick contends it was error to admit the autopsy report, over his objection, because it contained statements made by witnesses to the medical examiner.
Md.Code, Art. 22, § 8 provides in part as follows:
'It shall be the duty of the chief medical examiner, and the deputy medical examiners, to keep full and complete records in their respective offices, properly indexed, giving the name, if known, of every such person, the place where the body was found, date and cause of death, and all other available information relating thereto. * * * The records of the office of the chief medical examiner, and of the several deputy medical examiners, made by themselves or by anyone under their direction or supervision, or transcripts thereof certified by such medical examiner, shall be received as competent evidence in any court in this State of the matters and facts therein contained. * * * The records which shall be admissible as evidence under this section shall be records of the results of views and examinations of or autopsies upon the bodies of deceased persons by such medical examiner, or by anyone under his direct supervision or control, and shall not include statements made by witnesses or other persons. (Italics added)
The portion of the medical examiner's report to which objection was made reads as follows: 'Manner of Death: Homicide knocked to ground and kicked.' 'Time of Injury: About 7:30 p. m. 1 August 1966.' 'Place of Injury: Fairmount and Washington Street.' The record discloses this information was furnished by witnesses and was not the result of examinations by the medical examiner or his assistants; therefore, it does not seem to be within the language of the statute. Since, however, the information was brought out in oral testimony, we think this portion of the report was merely cumulative hearsay and its admission, if erroneous, was harmless. Ferrier v. State, 5 Md.App. 553, 248 A.2d 501, and cases cited therein. Although the eyewitness did not see the kicking, we think his testimony was sufficient to raise an inference thereof.
Over objection, the trial judge admitted pictures of the brain and skull which were taken during the autopsy for the purpose of illustrating how the injuries had affected the brain. It would appear that the pictures were admissible under the statute, supra. The admissibility of pictures in any case is a matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State
...trial judge in light of the particular facts." Accord, United States v. Butler, 481 F.2d 531 (D.C.Cir.1973). See Rasnick v. State, 7 Md.App. 564, 571-572, 256 A.2d 543 (1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 835, 91 S.Ct. 70, 27 L.Ed.2d 67 Page 509 It is clear that Judge Cathell understood the appli......
-
Grandison v. State
... ... Since there is no exact measure for weighing these kinds of dangers against the need for an examination, the decision must be entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge in light of the particular facts.' ... Accord, United States v. Butler, 481 F.2d 531 (D.C.Cir.1973). See Rasnick v. State, 7 Md.App. 564, 571-572, 256 A.2d 543 (1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 835, 91 S.Ct. 70, 27 L.Ed.2d 67 (1970)." ... What we stated in Evans is applicable here and is dispositive of the issue. Hence, the trial court did not commit reversible error ... ...
-
Pinkney v. State
... ... The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were matters for the jury. See Rasnick v. State, 7 Md.App. 564, 256 A.2d 543; Iozzi v. State, 5 Md.App. 415, 247 A.2d 758; Thompson v. State, 4 Md.App. 31, 240 A.2d 780; Williams v. State, 4 Md.App. 558, 244 A.2d 476 ... Applying the test set out in Williams v. State, 5 Md.App. 450, 247 A.2d 731, we hold there was no ... ...
-
Woodruff v. State
... ... Maryland Rule 1086. Both the credibility of the witness and the weight of the evidence are matters for the trier of fact. Rasnick v. State, 7 Md.App. 564, 256 A.2d 543; Taylor v. State, 7 Md.App. 558, 256 A.2d 554. We apply these rules in reviewing cases involving convictions for offenses ranging from the felony of murder in the first degree to the misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. But in Jacobellis, supra, the Brennan ... ...